I have noticed that alot of people on here define themselves as Libertarian. This is not really a movement or ideology that I fully understand as it is not very prevalent in the UK. Of course I understand the concept of liberty, free will and all that good stuff but what does it actually mean to be a 'Libertarian'? I would really appreciate your responses so as to gain a better picture of this. Thanks

At 2/17/2010 3:38:18 AM, Lukas wrote:I have noticed that alot of people on here define themselves as Libertarian. This is not really a movement or ideology that I fully understand as it is not very prevalent in the UK. Of course I understand the concept of liberty, free will and all that good stuff but what does it actually mean to be a 'Libertarian'? I would really appreciate your responses so as to gain a better picture of this. Thanks

an easy way to think about it is: Fiscally conservative + Liberal on personal issues

I suppose you could also think of it as having the Ideal government only get involved in people's lives when they have disputes with one another....

Now I myself am more libertarian than anything else, but my Humanity does demand some limited (basic needs) social safety net.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 2/17/2010 3:38:18 AM, Lukas wrote:I have noticed that alot of people on here define themselves as Libertarian. This is not really a movement or ideology that I fully understand as it is not very prevalent in the UK. Of course I understand the concept of liberty, free will and all that good stuff but what does it actually mean to be a 'Libertarian'? I would really appreciate your responses so as to gain a better picture of this. Thanks

an easy way to think about it is: Fiscally conservative + Liberal on personal issues

I suppose you could also think of it as having the Ideal government only get involved in people's lives when they have disputes with one another....

Now I myself am more libertarian than anything else, but my Humanity does demand some limited (basic needs) social safety net.

Interesting, thanks for the response. So how does a libertarian system address the issue of social and financial inequality? What would its response be to say, inherited wealth? Would it allow a massive gulf between have and have not to arise and then only intervene at times of conflict? Its not a criticism, I'm just interested to know. I very much admire the stand on liberal ideals on personal issues but im just not sure about the rest of it.

I think Mattrodstrom gave a pretty good synopsis of what libertarian would mean.

Interesting, thanks for the response. So how does a libertarian system address the issue of social and financial inequality? What would its response be to say, inherited wealth? Would it allow a massive gulf between have and have not to arise and then only intervene at times of conflict?

Well as long as the "massive gulf" arises legally, what is the problem? Libertarians strive to maximize personal liberty, therefore limiting wealth through legal measures or government action is against their principles (although I personally and would guess other libertarians see the need for certain regulations such as anti-trust and insider trading laws). But as long as a person's wealth is accumulated legally, neither I or anyone else should have the right to then redistribute that persons wealth.

By social inequality I mean the lack of equality brought about by economic/financial inequality such as poor housing and health care.I'm afraid to say that I think some peoples concept of 'liberty' is more like 'apathy' from some of the comments I have read. I think the problem lies with modern day politics failure to engage with people. The government should be elected by the people and of the people and should be subject to constant scrutiny by the people and ousted by the people when the majority's interests are not met. This is clearly not the case in the world as anyone can see but that doesn't mean we should give up and look after ourselves or collect money and arms to defend ourselves against the government. In order to effect real change we need to get more political not less. In my opinion 'big government' is a good thing, so long as the government is a true representation of the people. I prefer an elected individual who has a responsibility to the people rather than a private individual who has a responsibility to his profits. The more people lose faith in the democratic process, the more tyranny ensues.

By social inequality I mean the lack of equality brought about by economic/financial inequality such as poor housing and health care.

So the effects of financial inequality

but I would venture to say that it's not really INequality which most concerns you, but rather the extreme hardship some face b/c of financial insecurity (which may or may not be their own fault).

This concerns me too, and that would be why I would be for limited provision of health care, housing and the like for those in dire need.(especially children and the like; I think grown men don't need to be provided with housing, they can go make a hobo shelter in the park :)

I'm afraid to say that I think some peoples concept of 'liberty' is more like 'apathy' from some of the comments I have read. I think the problem lies with modern day politics failure to engage with people. The government should be elected by the people and of the people and should be subject to constant scrutiny by the people and ousted by the people when the majority's interests are not met. This is clearly not the case in the world as anyone can see but that doesn't mean we should give up and look after ourselves or collect money and arms to defend ourselves against the government. In order to effect real change we need to get more political not less. In my opinion 'big government' is a good thing, so long as the government is a true representation of the people. I prefer an elected individual who has a responsibility to the people rather than a private individual who has a responsibility to his profits. The more people lose faith in the democratic process, the more tyranny ensues.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

By social inequality I mean the lack of equality brought about by economic/financial inequality such as poor housing and health care.

They don't give a sh-t about it. Libertarians believe in minimal government and minimal taxes (if any). They don't think the government should play a role in anyone's life (so it can't tell them what to do or not to do) and only serve to enforce contracts and ensure that nobody infringes upon another's liberty. They don't believe in government sponsored health care, social security, the FDA or government sponsored programs of any kind. They think wealth inheritance is legit and being born into poor circumstances is unfortunate but irrelevant as far as the government is concerned. They do not feel the government has any responsibility to do anything (because it would mean taking money from perhaps unwilling tax payers which they consider theft). Despite this, many, like Ragnar, support wars overseas even though it would require perhaps unwilling tax payers to fund that too. They don't believe in democracy or using a majority voting system to determine who is elected into office. The ideology is maximum liberty and freedom, including from government. Also, there can obviously be no government intervention in business or private enterprise. They believe everything should be privatized and that the private sector can regulate itself.

I don't think Libertarianism is necessarily opposed to democracy... I'd just only be in support of a Democracy that respects people's liberty.

Please explain what this means. What kind of democracy respects people's liberty and which kind of democracy doesn't?

A democracy which is built to be restrained. In the US the Federal Government is a democratic one which, with the 9th and tenth amendments, is required to respect the multitudes of "rights"/liberties of those people whom it governs.

It is not allowed to enforce Anything on anyone, unless the constitution specifically gave it that power.

These rights may ultimately be subject to change (or unjustly be interpreted away by stupid interpretations of the commerce clause) but it is designed to be a government of limited powers, so as to respect the self determining nature of it's people.

A democracy that doesn't have fundamental protections of people's "rights" would be one that need not respect those "rights", and one that can decide to not do so at the whims of a simple tyrannical majority.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

Lwerd has it about right, although I don't support "taxes for wars overseas." I support user fees for wars overseas, and as long as taxes are around I'd rather they go to wars overseas than paying people not to produce anything.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Let me rephrase it, In this system of government where private interests are dominant and government is limited, who are the overseers, law makers?

The only role of the government in a libertarian state (please note that there are many different types of libertarian states that have more specific rules) is to ensure that people are free to do as they wish, so long as it doesn't interfere with other people's liberties. Most all of them still support a legal system and a police system to enforce that people (and corporations) are not infringing on other's rights. Though they try to use as little as possible, since the more the government does, the more money it needs via taxes (or fees) which they view as theft (or at least parasitic).

At 2/17/2010 3:26:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:Humans themselves are a contradiction?

First, decisions to act (and reasoning on how one ought to act) are dependent on having cares, and cares come from feelings.

I'm saying people may have natural feelings which, if considered individually, might lead to different actions. Now depending on the situation, and which feelings it evokes, the reasoning for actions would change with those feelings evoked by the situation at hand (which determines what it is in the situation you care about)

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."